The EU AI Act Newsletter #92: AI Sandboxes Consultation Open

Welcome to the EU AI Act Newsletter, a brief biweekly newsletter by the Future of Life Institute providing you with up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU artificial intelligence law.

Consultation on AI regulatory sandboxes: The European Commission is seeking feedback on draft implementing act for establishing AI regulatory sandboxes under the AI Act, with consultation open from 2 December 2025 to 13 January 2026. The Act permits prospective providers to develop, train, validate and test innovative AI systems for limited periods under regulatory supervision within controlled frameworks established by competent authorities, including in real-world conditions where appropriate. These AI regulatory sandboxes aim to support the Act’s objectives of fostering AI innovation whilst ensuring compliance with the legislation. The Commission will adopt an implementing act to set out common rules for the establishment and operation of sandboxes as mandated by the AI Act. The draft implementing act is available for public consultation for five weeks, during which stakeholders can submit comments on the proposed framework.

Consultation on protocols for reserving rights from text and data mining: The European Commission has launched a stakeholder consultation from 1 December 2025 to 9 January 2026 on protocols for reserving rights from text and data mining under the AI Act and General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice. This supports implementing the Act’s obligation for GPAI model providers to identify and comply with rightsholders’ reservation of rights. The Commission, supported by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and stakeholder groups, is facilitating identification of state-of-the-art, technically implementable opt-out protocols widely adopted across cultural and creative sectors. The consultation invites rightsholders, GPAI providers, civil society organisations, standardisation bodies and others to share views on technical feasibility and uptake of different text and data mining opt-out solutions identified in EUIPO’s generative AI copyright study. Following discussions, the Commission will publish a regularly reviewed list of agreed machine-readable opt-out solutions.

New standards mapping website: The EU AI Act Harmonised Standards Mapping by Adam Leon Smith provides a summary of intended coverage by CEN-CENELEC standards currently under development. This information derives from draft standards circulated for public enquiry (or Draft International Standards) and information published by CEN-CENELEC. The mapping represents intended coverage as standards are being developed, with standards at varying development stages requiring users to check stage indicators for maturity levels. Final harmonised standards may differ from current drafts, and enquiry-stage drafts have not received approval from national bodies. Users are advised always to consult the official EU AI Act text, the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU), and published harmonised standards for compliance purposes rather than relying solely on this mapping. The interactive mapping has been created to assist stakeholders in understanding the developing standards landscape supporting AI Act implementation.

Safety scorecard looks at general-purpose AI providers’ practices: As reported by Jackie Snow in Quartz, the Future of Life Institute’s winter 2025 AI Safety Index has given failing or near-failing grades to all leading AI companies for their plans to control superintelligent systems, despite their race to develop technology surpassing human intelligence. The assessment evaluated eight major AI companies across six dimensions, including risk assessment, current harms and existential safety, using an independent panel of leading experts for their third edition. While Anthropic, OpenAI and Google DeepMind achieved the highest scores with C+ to C grades overall, every company received D or F grades on existential safety measures – the ability to prevent loss of control over advanced AI systems. Companies acknowledge catastrophic risks could be as high as one in three, yet lack concrete plans to reduce them to acceptable levels. Five companies participated in the detailed survey for the first time, providing unprecedented transparency, but even top performers fall short of emerging regulatory standards like the EU AI Code of Practice and California’s SB 53.

Regulatory chaos due to the proposal to pause high-risk rules: Pieter Haeck from POLITICO reported that the European Commission has created a significant legal muddle after agreeing to pause part of its AI law following industry pressure. The Commission’s delay requires legislative amendment through the European Parliament and Council of the EU, but until this occurs, the original 2 August 2026 deadline remains in force. Many fear the legislative fix won’t navigate EU legal machinery in time, creating highly disruptive confusion. The Commission stated the delay could last up to 16 months but might shorten if technical standards develop faster than expected. This uncertainty leaves company executives unable to plan effectively, with some potentially proceeding with compliance as a precaution. The Commission proposed pausing rules until December 2027 at latest but retains discretion to activate them earlier if support tools are ready, meaning companies could face six-month compliance notices anytime between August 2026 and December 2027. Even some lawmakers acknowledge that this approach fails to provide businesses the legal certainty required for operations.

Germany and several other countries pushing for more under the simplification: Maximilian Henning at Euractiv reported that several EU countries are pushing for the Commission’s Digital Omnibus proposal to go much further, according to ministers’ remarks during a recent telecommunications council meeting. Germany’s digital minister Karsten Wildberger openly stated “we need much more ambition and courage from the Commission,” describing the proposals as “very much not far reaching enough.” Sweden’s Erik Slottner called the proposal a good start but said “we will have to do more in the future,” whilst Czechia’s AI envoy Jan Kavalirek described it as “a strong starting point, but not the end of our efforts.” Ministers praised the Commission’s planned Digital Fitness Check to assess EU tech rules, potentially leading to further simplification efforts. Estonia’s Liisa-Ly Pakosta insisted current data and rights protections must be maintained, with Lithuania warning against further GDPR cuts. The Netherlands’ Vincent Karremans criticised the Commission’s movable AI Act deadlines as overly complex, preferring “one clear, fixed application deadline.” These early remarks establish positions for formal Council discussions, with high pressure for quick agreement given August deadlines, while Parliament’s social democrats, liberals and Greens have already expressed major complaints about the simplification push.